Fran O'Sullivan: Greenpeace fills gap with celebrity spin

Keisha Castle-Hughes is one of the faces of Greenpeace's '40 per cent by 2020' television campaign. Photo / Herald on Sunday

Celebrities ranging from actor Keisha Castle-Hughes to business icon Stephen Tindall are urging all New Zealanders to "Sign On" for Greenpeace's latest campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"To help avoid catastrophic climate change NZ needs to Sign On to a 40 per cent by 2020 emissions reduction target at the UN Climate talks in December - The World Needs US" - is the slogan that blares from the campaign's website.

But frankly there is a more immediate threat in play - the potential for another round of de facto protectionism if the US proceeds with proposals to slap tariffs on products from countries which are not reducing their emissions - something which those of a cautionary bent believe could plunge the world into outright depression.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, or Aces for short, is Congress' first go at tackling the growing problem of climate change. The problem in the legislation - which President Barack Obama acknowledges - is a provision that would enable the US to impose tariffs on goods produced in nations that do not commit to greenhouse gas reductions. Obama says at a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and there has been a significant drop in global trade, the US has to be "very careful about sending any protectionist signals out".

Unfortunately that genie is already out of the bottle.

China and India have signalled they will take World Trade Organisation cases if the US proceeds with Aces.

But on the domestic front the problem of how we marry the twin imperative of getting through the recession and restoring NZ to a rapid economic growth path with the need to change our emissions profile is not getting much in-depth consideration.

The greenhouse campaign is sophisticated, which is hardly surprising given Greenpeace's own deep financial coffers and that of its business allies. Its website is plastered with shots of the "high-profile New Zealanders" who have already signed on - telling those who join up they will be in "good company".

Most are celebrities. Like the fetching - if rather scantily dressed Castle-Hughes - who has been filmed traipsing around the Pacific Islands and has since written to Prime Minster John Key urging him to listen to our Pacific neighbours' voices telling countries like New Zealand "to please reduce their greenhouse emissions by at least 40 per cent by 2020".

Frankly if Aitutaki gets swamped, so will much of New Zealand's low-lying areas, making debate over just who owns the foreshore and seabed rather academic (or considerably sportive) as the sea moves in to encroach on existing coastal lands.

The Sign On campaign is not shy of distorting the facts.

Another headline posted on its website proclaims "Big business comes out in support of the target". Such an endorsement may have played a part in enticing nearly 75,000 people to register their support for the campaign.

But the "big business" slogan Greenpeace used in its headline did not refer to a group of large businesses (which is the standard interpretation for the catchall term) but just one firm which would struggle to fit the "big business" category.

The news story written by Greenpeace's communications manager Kathy Cumming did not quite live up to expectations in other respects. Cumming reported that "something quite extraordinary happened. Gull came out in support of a 40 per cent by 2020 emissions target".

"The oil company says we must let the science dictate what to do. If the science says we have to cut our emissions by 40 per cent by 2020, then that is what we have to do."

In fact, Gull's press release is by no means as "literal" as Cumming portrays. It says it supports Greenpeace's recommendation that the NZ Government make a strong commitment in setting its greenhouse gas emissions target for 2020. It does say "we should leave the sums up to the scientists on the exact levels of emission to be achieved by 2020" - but nowhere does the statement mention the 40 per cent figure. It is of course arguable that the report by the United Nations Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change signifies that a 40 per cent target by 2020 is the least that developed countries need to do to prevent "dangerous climate change" of more than 2C.

But the Gull statement can also be read as a marketing ploy to convince more Kiwis to "take their own personal steps to reduce emissions trading including choosing biofuels over petroleum-based fuels".

The reality is that in the short timeframe available, real "big business" like the oil majors will not be out of the action in New Zealand.

The problem the Government faces is that the Greenpeace campaign is filling the vacuum National itself created by failing to get a big brain policy in place before last year's election to get emissions down.

Cabinet ministers have been urged by business figures to adopt a New Zealand-centric policy that would enable NZ to speedily shift gears on greenhouse gas emissions by adopting full-scale Government-funded afforestation policies - basically plant enough trees each year over a five-year period to help offset the growth in emissions. The argument goes that planting new forests on marginal lands - including the ridges and gullies on farm lands - and using effective land-use management techniques would have a much more direct effect than waiting on business to effectively utilise incentives created in an emissions trading scheme.

As one business player put it: "Investing $250 million each year in big-Government funded plantings would have helped offset the massive growth in dairy and transport emissions and provided lots of new jobs to help people through the recession. Instead NZ has more roads."

Solid Energy's Don Elder was in a similar vein in a paper produced for the parliamentary select committee studying the proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme. Elder argues that by planting one million hectares of new exotic and indigenous forests over 20-30 years - combined with pest control and good management - NZ would be able to offset emissions growth far beyond 2050. A simple universal emissions levy could fund the national elements of the strategy raising the required revenue but not disincentivising economic growth or causing economic leakage (ie, pushing polluting firms overseas).

Climate Change Minister Nick Smith and International Negotiations Minister Tim Groser completed their own whistle-stop "public consultation" tour on NZ's 2020 greenhouse gas emissions target last Friday. They note that: "New Zealand has committed to a global goal of stabilising emissions at not more than 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent. A long-term goal has been set of 50 by 50 - reducing New Zealand's net emissions to 50 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050. Setting an interim target for 2020 requires careful consideration, especially in the face of global recession. It needs to be realistic so we don't inadvertently put our economy at risk. It needs to be achievable or we risk our good international reputation by failing to deliver. It must also be sufficient to protect the environment for future generations."

Problem is the Cabinet ministers' schedule of meetings did not achieve much public cut-through. Smith and Groser - no mean slouches themselves in the vocal stakes - were drowned out by Greenpeace's celebrity-driven "40 per cent by 2020" television campaign.

Groser is already saying that a ratifiable treaty is not likely to emerge at the Copenhagen meeting in December - which could pose a big problem for this country, given the legislation now on the table in the US.

Investing in tree planting now may be the best insurance for the NZ economy against US protectionism.

It might even keep Greenpeace happy.